Jahn Petter Johnsen1, Otto Andreassen2, Bjørn Hersoug12 and Ann-Magnhild Solås12
1Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø – the Arctic University of Norway,
2Nofima, Tromsø, Norway Abstract:
Natural resource governance is based on interventions that regulate human behavior (Berkes, 2007).
The interventions are defined on basis of assumption of how human actions impact on nature (Pálsson 2006). Since nature is not directly accessible, nature has to be represented through specific governable objects that can be the foundation for defining interventions (Johnsen et al. 2009, Johnsen 2014). Governable objects are constituted when the components and processes in an ecosystem through specific techniques are symbolically transformed into bounded objects that can be measured, quantified or modeled in ways that make it possible to create specific intervention mechanisms for governance, as is done with a fish stock. “The managed fish stock” can serve as an example of the creation of a governance object. The fish stock” is produced through modeling and simulation as an object of knowledge that over time will be more and more stable and durable as a governance object. The fish stock that we regulate is in this sense “constructed”.
In our conceptual model (illustrated in slide 14), governance is understood as an interaction between two subsystems: The governing system and the system-to-be-governed (Jentoft 2007). The governance system produces and processes knowledge about the system-to-be-governed, and converts this knowledge into management instruments, i.e. a system of regulatory practices (Johnsen et al. 2009). This conceptual understanding of governance includes policymaking, decision-making, administrative actions and formal management, and the natural and social interactions that constitute the socio-ecological system-to-be-governed. Governance is used here as having a broader meaning for governing, while management denotes the targeted formal actions that are undertaken to regulate the fish farming. Two mechanisms for information feedback are depicted in the model.
On the right hand side, there is a technical and scientific information system for monitoring the effects on the natural system. The left side of the figure in slide 14 depicts the control and regulatory instruments that have been created to regulate human activity in relation to the estimated effects and impacts. Additionally, a governance system can have public information channels that go directly from the system-to-be-governed, or representatives of this system, to the governing system (middle arrow). In this way, the dynamic and complex character of natural and social systems becomes reduced to specific tangible governable objects. In addition, the political and ideological part of the model illustrates that governance is not only a technical process.
Different from the fish stock, coastal space is still in the making as a governance object. Moreover, while the fish stock management is the responsibility of one knowledge authority, the Institute of Marine Research, one Political authority, the Ministry of Trade and Fisheries, and one executive management body, the Fisheries Directorate, aquaculture governance is more complicated. Coastal space is the responsibility of several knowledge bodies, political and administrative authorities.
Coastal space is not yet constructed and stabilized as a defined and bounded governance object. This has implications for the governance of aquaculture. There are overlapping responsibilities, conflicting goals and values. This organization structure has resulted in a complicated planning and management system with a variety of governance tools – all with great ambitions, but involving
83
considerable problems of coordinating the different stakeholder interests – and with tensions between the various governance levels. Local concerns may easily be overrun by national priorities and plans, while national goals may be undermined by local foot dragging and protests (Hersoug 2013).
The Aquaculture controversies in Norway is in one way or another related to management and administrative practice, either through actions meant to help, reveal or attempts to deal with the controversy. Policy objectives, management systems and regulations are all complex, and to some extent characterised by a lack of coordination. Tensions occur both vertically between different management levels, and horizontally between sector authorities, or neighbouring municipalities. This makes it challenging for the industry to relate to the management system, and also to integrate the different governance needs. In addition, there are increased pressures in the coastal zone regarding new ways to harvest, use, and protect coastal nature and resources. Global and external interests also play an increasingly larger role in local communities. Thus, the controversies are very complex.
Disputes over aquaculture in Norway often arise when new licenses are announced by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, when fish farms apply for new or larger sites, and when coastal zone planes are prepared by the local communities (in Norway, planning of the near-shore sea space is a task delegated to the municipalities). The controversies are mostly framed and expressed along four axes; 1) access to sea areas, 2) effects on the natural environment, in particular sea lice and escapes, 3) fishing, commercial- and recreational fishing, and 4) community development, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages.
One of the major themes of the controversy seems to be the struggle for and access to sea areas, but there may be reason to question whether there are other conditions that prevails. Aquaculture is a very area-efficient way to produce food. A normal sized aquaculture site today has around the same extent as the infields at old day’s smallholdings. On such a confined area the annual production volume of farmed salmon are more than the total meat production in the agricultural industry in both Troms and Finnmark County. The overall physical area seizure for all sites for salmon farming in Norway is less than 0.5 percent of the sea area within the baseline of Norway. It is thus likely that the controversy currently are more about political tolerance and social acceptance than lack of physical space, and environmental constraints.
Today, the focus is mainly on environmental concerns, which also are reflected in the regulatory regime where the environmental concerns seems to be almost the only thing that can stop applications for new or bigger aquaculture sites. However, it is obvious that also, other aspects should be taken into consideration, but a narrow focus on environmental sustainability tends to lock the aquaculture controversy in Norway to environmental issues, thus, many fundamental issues regarding the salmon farming industry (social and cultural impact, rights, knowledge, and governance, local versus global development etc.) are suppressed.
Research findings indicate that the controversies might also stem form an immature governance regime that is fragmented, and suffers from a lack of coordination and a diversity of objectives, signals, practices etc. Hence, developing more knowledge about how and why the controversies arise is essential. So is developing governance models that reduces and resolves controversies, rather than adding to them.
84 References:
Berkes, F. (2007). Sacred ecology, 2nd edition. Routledge. New York and London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Hersoug, B. (2013). The battle for space: The position of Norwegian aquaculture in integrated coastal zone planning. In: Global challenges in integrated coastal zone management (Eds. Moksness, Dahl & Støttrup). Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 159–168.
Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 31, pp. 360–370.
Johnsen, J.P. (2014). Is fisheries governance possible? Fish and Fisheries, 15:3, pp. 428–444.
Johnsen, J.P., P. Holm, S. Sinclair & D. Bavington (2009). The cyborgisation of the fisheries. On attempts to make fisheries management possible. Maritime Studies (MAST),7, pp. 9–34.
Pálsson, G. (2006). Nature and society in the age of post-modernity. In: Reimagining political ecology (Eds. A. Biersack and J.B. Greenberg). Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 70–93.
Links to two articles about space as governance object:
http://www.maritimestudiesjournal.com/content/13/1/2 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art60/
85
Aquaculture governance and controversy in Norway
by
Jahn Petter Johnsen Otto Andreassen
Bjørn Hersoug Ann‐Magnhild Solås
Nofima/The Arctic University of Norway
Aquaculture governance DQGFRQWURYHUV\
LQ Norway
Jahn Petter Johnsen, Otto Andreassen, Bjørn Hersoug and Ann‐Magnhild Solås
EŽĨŝŵĂͬdŚĞƌĐƚŝĐhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŽĨEŽƌǁĂLJ
How to govern Nature?
• Through regulation of human behaviour
• By the use of representations of Nature that makes interventions possible – Management Objects
• Due to path dependency and institutional
“lock‐in” Management Objects will over time be more and more stable and durable
86
Construction of a Management Object
«The managed fish stock»
• Not the same as the fish in the sea
• Science produces “the fish stock” as an object of knowledge, through modelling and
simulation
• Stock estimates are starting point for a bundle of institutionalised management practices
• The fish stock is “made” and stable
87
D
Different from the fish stock, coastal space
as a Management Object is still in making
Theoretical Perspective:
• Science and Technology study perspective
• Actor‐Network Theory
• Management Objects are seen as multiple objects
• Example: Arteriosclerosis. From Mol A 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice.
• The cyborg fish, Johnsen, Holm, Sinclair and
Bavington (2009), Johnsen, Murray and Neis (2009).
88
Norwegian Coastal Planning
•
The Plan and Building Act (PBA)(1965)–
Municipal responsibility–
Physical planning on land – coordination between sectors and use of area–
Avoid conflicts between different users•
1985 – Harbour areas included in the PBA•
1989 – Coastal Planning to the baseline•
2009 (New PBA) Municipality planning to 1 nm outside the baselineWhy coastal planning?
Cages in the sea made it posible to intensify the production
Access to coastal area became an asset and resource for fish farming A struggle for access to area started
The management regime was established
89
Ecosystem based approch (EA)
• Shift in approach and focus from users’ rights and interests to user impact on the ecosystem
• Rights, impacts and responsibility are seen in relation
• EA focuses on functionality and dynamics
• Relationships between a variety of actors and components
• From 2D(area) to 3D (space)
90
Anchoring and user conflicts
Physical Chemical
Biological Ecological
Economic Social From area to space : Example: The site for
aquaculture
Interests and stakeholders:
fishers and sea transport
1970s Today
Stakeholders: Many
Cultural Political
Impacts and risks
91
Sailing lane
Industry Fishery harbour
Natural and cultural heritage Homes Road brigde view point and social meeting place
Power lines
Functions and impacts
Seagull nesting place
Fisheries Social
system
Natural system M. of Trade,
Industry and Fisheries Directorate of Fisheries
Institute of Marine Research ICES
Licences Catch quotas
Governing system
System to be governed
Governance model: Fisheries
Governance model: Aquaculture
93
Governance in Norway: Aquaculture
Aquaculture Site Application Process
94
Controversy increases when:
Tromsø havpadleklubb
Forsvarets mediesenter
• New licenses are announced
• Fish farmers apply for new sites
• When coastal zone plans are prepared
Foto: Otto Andreassen
Controversy: A battle for space?
95
21 Foto: Otto Andreassen
Controversy: A battle for space, or ..?
Tromsø havpadleklubb
Forsvarets mediesenter
96
Controversy in Norway:
• Environmental impact
– Sea lice – Escaping
• Fishing
– Wild salmon – Marine fish
• Rural development
– Distribution of advantages and disadvantages
– Rights
Controversy in Norway;
mainly focus on environmental issues
• A too narrow focus and regulation on almost only environmental issues leads to lock the controversy
• Thus, it leads to hide many fundamental issues regarding the salmon farming industry (social and cultural impact, rights, knowledge, and governance, local versus global development…).
97
Does the regulatory regime add to the controversy?
• Fragmented
• Diversity of objectives and signals
• Diversity of practises
• Lack of coordination
Increase the production ten times!
Halve the production!
Institute of Marine Research
Directorate of Nature Management
Takk for oss
www.nofima.no
http://www.raesidecartoon.com
Thank you
98
99